Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Napier v. Bertram, 954 P.2d 1389.

59 citing documents.

Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
7 ¶ 27 In Napier v. Bertram we recognized that, although the “general rule is that a professional owes no duty to a non-client unless special circumstances require otherwise,” there are “special circumstances” where we have “imposed liability on a professional to the extent that a foreseeable and specific third party is injured by the professional’s actions.” , 242 ¶ 15, , 1393 ¶ 15 (1998).
State v. Affordable Bail Bonds 6 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Affordable Bail Bonds 6 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Hislop v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 5 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Hislop v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 5 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 21 , ¶ 21 (1998) (concluding after review of competing policies that it would be inappropriate to recognize a negligence duty by insurance agent to nonclient); cf. Bovsun v. Sanperi, 61 N.Y.2d 219 , 473 N.Y.S.2d 357 , 461 N.E.2d 843, 847 (1984) ("[D]elineation of limits of liability in tor
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 10 , 241 ¶ 11, , 1392 ¶ 11 (1998), our supreme court observed that A.R.S.
Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 991 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 991 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 9 , to support their assertion that defendants owed a duty to them.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by